Infidelity

[Sour Masher]

Actually is does matter. I had a very good mechanic suggest to me to "hurry up and sell" my daughters car before the head gasket completely went. I know he thought he was doing me a favor by suggesting that. In reality I know he would have no problem lying or cheating me if he could suggest I do it someone else. I told him I couldn't do that, scrapped the car and found a different mechanic.

I expect my mechanics to be more honest than my politicians. Did i mention I hate politics.

Here you seem to assume that someone dishonest in their relationship with their spouse would be dishonest in their professional relationships. That is certainly possible, but I don't know if it is always the case. In this case, your mechanic showed himself to be professionally dishonest. Some people have strange moral codes, compartmentalizing different aspects of their lives, acting morally in some roles and immorally in others. How strong do you think the correlation is between someone acting dishonestly in one aspect of their life and other aspects of their life? I don't know. There is probably something to the notion of a liar being a liar. But I do know of cases where people are more moral and meticulous with their profession than their persona life, with all sort of individual justifications for that.

Also, to my example of MLK. Do you think the fact that there are rumors of his affairs should affect his legacy and message as a Civil Rights leader? Certainly it affects our opinion of him as a husband and Christian preacher, but what impact should it have on our opinion of his message? Likewise, what impact does JFK's or any other politicians infidelities have on our assessment of them as presidents?

[Gregg]

Here you seem to assume that someone dishonest in their relationship with their spouse would be dishonest in their professional relationships. That is certainly possible, but I don't know if it is always the case. In this case, your mechanic showed himself to be professionally dishonest. Some people have strange moral codes, compartmentalizing different aspects of their lives, acting morally in some roles and immorally in others. How strong do you think the correlation is between someone acting dishonestly in one aspect of their life and other aspects of their life? I don't know. There is probably something to the notion of a liar being a liar. But I do know of cases where people are more moral and meticulous with their profession than their persona life, with all sort of individual justifications for that.

Also, to my example of MLK. Do you think the fact that there are rumors of his affairs should affect his legacy and message as a Civil Rights leader? Certainly it affects our opinion of him as a husband and Christian preacher, but what impact should it have on our opinion of his message? Likewise, what impact does JFK's or any other politicians infidelities have on our assessment of them as presidents?

The evidence of the fallen is that they put their desires ahead of morality when they feel like it or can justify it to ultimately get what they want.

Regarding MLK, his mission was great, how much greater would it have been if he would not have used his power to satisfy his sexual appetite.

JFK missed one of his kids being born because he thought it a good idea to be with his mistress. That is very sad to me on so many levels. I don't hate him, I sure wouldn't trust him, and I am not sure he was really all that great of a president. Now it doesn't matter except for what we might learn from history. He is just another brick in the wall of why I hate politics.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Some interesting responses.

First, thanks for the condolences, it's a strange mix, grief and anger--but there you have it.


The consensus seems to be split into three groups--the Infidelity is a way of life group, the it depends on the circumstances if it's to be excused group and the Hell hath no fury like a man who can't control his sexual desires clan. (purposively hyperbolic for dramatic effect Gregg)

I'm odd of course in that I see Marriage as a man made construct, not anything more than another way for those in power to control the narrative regarding how they feel people should live. I don't believe in God or any organized religion, so the idea of some kind of deity sanctioned union doesn't resonate with me. I see it merely as something two people in a committed relationship must do to enjoy benefits of the others life legally (insurance, etc.) I fall into the middle group, but can see the side which says Infidelity is pretty much the way of life in today's society. I can't even begin to understand the other as it's based in theology, which I don't subscribe to. (not that I mean to diminish your beliefs by my lack of belief)

I don't believe infidelity indicates dishonesty in all cases, nor lack of morality, therefore I don't believe it should be a disqualifier or at least I wouldn't consider it to be when casting my vote.

That includes both sides of the aisle.

And to whomever tried to equate my non vote for HRC as cutting my nose of to spite my face--not true--Trumps reign has hopefully taught a lesson to the Democrat's--Integrity matters--If we don't demand it, we can't really complain when the other side doesn't either.

[mjl]

The point I've seen made a few times with Katie Hill is that it was specifically an affair with a subordinate, and independent of the lurid details of what kind of relationship it was and the existence of the pictures, the power imbalance there is something that "we" definitely wouldn't approve of if a man was doing it. "we" being people who are trying to avoid making decisions incorporating political preferences and whataboutism.

[GwynnInTheHall]

The point I've seen made a few times with Katie Hill is that it was specifically an affair with a subordinate, and independent of the lurid details of what kind of relationship it was and the existence of the pictures, the power imbalance there is something that "we" definitely wouldn't approve of if a man was doing it. "we" being people who are trying to avoid making decisions incorporating political preferences and whataboutism.

Again, something I've never understood--Yes there are people who use position to quid pro quo to leverage a romantic/sexual relationship, but why in the world should a married couple or any couple be adversely affected or legislated against simply because one is a boss and another a subordinate.

not everyone is a predator and not everyone leverages their power to abuse others.


We as a society need to STOP lumping everyone and every situation together and take the time to look at intent and context--to do otherwise is just Lazy.

[mjl]

that wasn't the response I was expecting, I'll say that.

1) As far as I know, there has been no official punishment for Katie Hill. Chris Collins fought the Ethics Committee until he pleaded guilty, Duncan Hunter is still fighting. If she wanted to she could still be in Congress.

2) I think the reason we treat these cases differently is that it's very hard to distinguish intent and context when there's a severe power imbalance. Look at the Harvey Weinstein stuff - the reason it took so long to come out is that the people being abused valued their career more than trying to get him punished, and if they reported it not only would they lose their job but they would get blackballed out of the industry entirely. And (to your point about societal assessment) when they reported it years later, much of the response was "if that was so bad why didn't you report it at the time?" So we've decided that rather than trying to get useful information when one party is under the influence of the person being investigated and their statements can't be trusted, we just have a rule that says "don't do this."

[GwynnInTheHall]

that wasn't the response I was expecting, I'll say that.

1) As far as I know, there has been no official punishment for Katie Hill. Chris Collins fought the Ethics Committee until he pleaded guilty, Duncan Hunter is still fighting. If she wanted to she could still be in Congress.

2) I think the reason we treat these cases differently is that it's very hard to distinguish intent and context when there's a severe power imbalance. Look at the Harvey Weinstein stuff - the reason it took so long to come out is that the people being abused valued their career more than trying to get him punished, and if they reported it not only would they lose their job but they would get blackballed out of the industry entirely. And (to your point about societal assessment) when they reported it years later, much of the response was "if that was so bad why didn't you report it at the time?" So we've decided that rather than trying to get useful information when one party is under the influence of the person being investigated and their statements can't be trusted, we just have a rule that says "don't do this."

Again, here's where my opinion might surprise you.

Harvey Weinstein is a horrible person who used his position to COERCE people into unwanted sexual relationships. There are also people who FREELY use sex to get ahead or in some cases, enter into a relationship that might provide a multitude of things unrelated to romantical or even sexual connection. There is a difference. We should take the time to differentiate and yes-- rules/laws are there to protect the greater good when lines are blurred, but we as a society need to take the time to find the truth--The Truth is not always the most expedient course of action and IMO, people take the easy way out issuing back and white verdicts in the name of justice, but it's really about saving time and money. These rules, allow them to validate their course of action (inaction).

I see it everyday in my job, people who share the same responsibilities as I do making black and white decisions because it's easier than taking the time to actually do the job and make a FAIR and JUST decision.

[mjl]

Sure, but how do you know? If you talked to all those women who accused Harvey Weinstein five years ago, asked if their relationship was consensual and they'd said yes, would you have been convinced? Would that have made them okay? If Zelensky said his call with Trump was great, no threats or anything, would you believe him? Monica Lewinsky? Soon-Yi?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Sure, but how do you know? If you talked to all those women who accused Harvey Weinstein five years ago, asked if their relationship was consensual and they'd said yes, would you have been convinced? Would that have made them okay? If Zelensky said his call with Trump was great, no threats or anything, would you believe him? Monica Lewinsky? Soon-Yi?

Another of my non left opinions is that there should be criminal repercussions for those who lie, falsely accuse and/or misrepresent the truth.

I've long said (and I know this might fly in the face of some people ethics) That if you're a person of power, fame or wealth and choose to have an active sex life in whatever manner you might choose--Get signed consent from each and every partner. Video and archive as many of them as possible again, with full knowledge and authorization from each partner so that you have an accurate record of consent and willing participation. If you don't, you open yourself up to they said--they said type accusations and remembrances of certain encounters.

People like Harvey should be vilified for using their position to coerce, but a small amount of culpability does fall upon those who put their careers before their integrity.

I know that when I was in my mid 20s I was asked to be a part of a performance program So Cals largest professional theatre. In the middle of rehearsal I was approached by the producer/director who'd invited me in and asked out on a date. I was really taken aback andI remember the words exactly--I said--I though you cast me for my talent--his response--Oh Brian, there are a lot of talented boys out there.

I said no and walked away and never was asked to work for them or a few other places for years after.

Again, I believe this is a very complex issue that cannot be generalized with verdicts handed out in black and white.

[Sour Masher]

I agree with you on this Brian, but our society doesn't do well with nuance, so I understand the zero tolerance policies we have. But I agree that ideally, we could take these things case by case and look at all the evidence.

[mjl]

Another of my non left opinions is that there should be criminal repercussions for those who lie, falsely accuse and/or misrepresent the truth.

I've long said (and I know this might fly in the face of some people ethics) That if you're a person of power, fame or wealth and choose to have an active sex life in whatever manner you might choose--Get signed consent from each and every partner. Video and archive as many of them as possible again, with full knowledge and authorization from each partner so that you have an accurate record of consent and willing participation. If you don't, you open yourself up to they said--they said type accusations and remembrances of certain encounters.

People like Harvey should be vilified for using their position to coerce, but a small amount of culpability does fall upon those who put their careers before their integrity.

In your ideal world, what do we do if someone doesn't get signed consent? Do you think it's harder to coerce someone to sign a piece of paper for their boss than it is to coerce them into having a sexual relationship with their boss, and do you think that if they sign the paper they give up the right to later claim that they didn't really consent? Jeffrey Epstein got signed and video consent, is he cool now? (I mean, I guess literally he is, but you know.)

[B-Fly]

Again, something I've never understood--Yes there are people who use position to quid pro quo to leverage a romantic/sexual relationship, but why in the world should a married couple or any couple be adversely affected or legislated against simply because one is a boss and another a subordinate.

not everyone is a predator and not everyone leverages their power to abuse others.


We as a society need to STOP lumping everyone and every situation together and take the time to look at intent and context--to do otherwise is just Lazy.

The work superior-subordinate relationship is so complicated. When I was an associate lawyer at a small law firm in my late 20's, most of the young people in the firm would hang out together at work and outside of work, including the paralegals who were subordinate to the associates when assigned on the same matter. But as young people in NYC in our 20's, we were often drinking, flirting, staying out until the wee hours of the morning, etc. The sexual tension was constant and it was, by all accounts, fun for all involved. I ended up developing a strong bond with one paralegal who I did have one shared matter with, and although I suspected she was interested in taking things further, I had decided I was not going to proposition her in any way. Eventually at a party at my apartment, she took the initiative, and things escalated quickly. There was no formal dating policy in our office, but I wanted to disclose the relationship to the partners so that if they had any concerns about us working together on a matter, they could re-assign one of us. But my girlfriend didn't want to disclose the relationship to the partners, worrying that they might think less of her, and I honored her wishes on it. My roommate at the time was another associate, so we had to let him in on it, and then we eventually "came out" to the other young associates and paralegals with whom we regularly socialized. I fell in love quick, and when she broke up with me after six months, I was crushed. I could barely function at work, and the fact that about half of the office knew about us and half did not, and that we still had to work together and see each other every day, made it so much harder. Two months after the break up, we got back together, again with her as the "aggressor". And we were together for another two years, during which time we both moved on to different jobs (her in a different city, which ultimately led to our breakup). But at one point while we were together and still with the law firm, the partners decided to initiate associate performance reviews for paralegals, and we were supposed to submit a review for each paralegal with whom we worked. Again I sought her blessing to disclose the relationship. Again she said 'no'. So I just submitted performance evaluations for the other paralegals and never submitted one for my girlfriend. The partners probably had some clue from that, but didn't push. To this day, I don't know whether I think I was wrong to have the relationship, or wrong to keep it from the partners or the HR Director despite my girlfriend's wishes -- probably. But all-in-all, my girlfriend clearly was more important to me at that stage in my life than the job was.